This clearly answers the question: "Why does mathematics appear to have both discovered and invented qualities?"

[roydop]

Let's go over this again.

Mathematics expresses both discovered and invented qualities in superposition. Why?

Well, the actual phenomenal state of a message that has been discovered and not yet correctly interpreted, exhibits discovered and invented qualities. If you can't SEE this then I am unable to help you see any further, as this is self-evident to me

So, if the state of MESSAGE going through INTERPRETATION, exhibits both DISCOVERED and INVENTED qualities, then why is it not possible for mathematics to be exactly what the theory says it is?

The resolution to the question: "Why does mathematics exhibit both discovered and invented qualities in superposition?" emerges from my theorys description of mathematics (what it is).

It is only the reader's deep level of programming (to accept mathematics as being valid, via teaching it in school) that makes them unable to see that whichbis obvious

[roydop]

Explain to me how the description of mathematics (why it exists and what it's doing) presented by my theory, DOESN'T resolve the question: "Why does mathematics exhibit both discovered and invented qualities in superposition?"

My theory resolves the deepest philosophical question about mathematics, but due to the deep state of delusion that ALL OF HUMANITY is under, people are unable to SEE and accept that which is obvious

I'm challenging you to prove that my theory doesn't present a resolution to the question: "Why does mathematics exhibit both discovered and invented qualities?" If you can't then it does. If it does, then the theory is correct. If ithe theory is correct, mathematics is incorrect.

So go ahead.

Go ahead with what? I already asked you to show that 1. there is a Samsara cycle at all, and 2. that there's a message in math about this Samsara cycle. No response so far.

So far your hypothesis isn't even as good as dozens or hundreds of others about mathemathics. I'd say, looks like even my rambling was a better attempt, even though I never gave this much thought:

For the record, my preferred conjecture is that our mathemathics is probably a reflection of the laws/regularities/structure of our universe. Mathemathics may be different in other universes. So mathemathics is basically discovered. But mathemathics is done using the "unit", where a unit may the primordial abstract object. The unit is the 1. It's an abstract concept, there are no units in nature. We build the number line by taking the unit several times: 1, 2, 3, 4 etc. In this sense mathemathics is invented, the abstract unit is the langauge of mathemathics.

Samsara exists because human beings suffer. They suffer because they are in a state of delusion.

Now prove my theory wrong. Show me how a message that has been discovered and not yet correctly interpreted, does NOT express discovered and invented qualities in superposition.

If this condition of MESSAGE going through INTERPRETATION, (as my theory states) does indeed exhibit both discovered and invented qualities, then how is my theory incorrect? It's not incorrect because it is describing an impossible state, it's
incorrect in your eyes because you don't want to see it as correct.

[Atla]

Samsara exists because human beings suffer. They suffer because they are in a state of delusion.

Now prove my theory wrong. Show me how a message that has been discovered and not yet correctly interpreted, does NOT express discovered and invented qualities in superposition.

If this condition of MESSAGE going through INTERPRETATION, (as my theory states) does indeed exhibit both discovered and invented qualities, then how is my theory incorrect? It's not incorrect because it is describing an impossible state, it's
incorrect in your eyes because you don't want to see it as correct.

1. It doesn't follow that Samsara exists because human beings suffer: that's just an unproven and frankly quite ridiculous claim of Eastern philosophies.
And I've all the reason to believe that it's flat out wrong to claim that they suffer because they are in a state of delusion. Some suffering is caused by that, some isn't. And some suffering is caused by NOT being in a state of delusion.

2. Again, even if we grant the above ridiculous 1.: you keep saying that a message about Samsara has been discovered. Where are you getting this from? Discovered by whom, why have we never heard about this?
And if it's a message, why isn't it a message about cat footprints or anything else?

3. Again, you can't think? Do I have to take a big hammer and hammer it into your head that maths could have discovered and invented qualities for a multitude of different reasons, not just the one you are proposing?

[Iwannaplato]

This is not a field of my expertise, but
1) Their intention with the PM was not to prove that 1+1=2
2) It's not the conclusion of the PM.
3) It is under contention if they succeeded in their intention, but the book led to advances in a number of sub-fields in philosopy. IOW you are speaking as if it is accepted that this was their intent and that they succeeded. Both are false.

So, right off the bat, a very short time into the video, there is confusion.

You then generalize that human consciousness has been convinced that 1+1=2 is valid by the PM. That is also false.
There are very few people who have even heard of that book, let alone read it. That is not why people find 1+1=2 and all its cousins extremely useful. Many of these people may not think it is a kind of convention. Others may not realize ontology is implicit, in a certain sense, in some of the ways the number system is used. On the other hand people with all sorts of metaphysical views find the numbers useful and most poeople don't care about this topic.

It's an incorrect view of how human consciousness find 1+1=2 valid or useful. You're rescuing people from something they've never heard of and aren't interested in.

After 4+ minutes you bring in Occam's razor and you present it incorrectly. It is not that the simplest and most comprehensive answer is the best one.
The OR is suggesting parsimony with entities. The simplest answer that explains X and no other explains it better. It does not have to be more comprehensive, but as comprehensive...and posits less entities. It's not a big mistake, but I now already have to keep track of this confusion to see if it is playing some role.

Also, your did not present, so far an explanation or an arguement in support of your one sentence. You simply asserted something.

Assertiosn are only convincing when power is involved.

So far, you haven't demonstrated that your explanation/argument is simpler, just your conclusion is. And simpler than the PM: For some reason you are acting as if the relevant authority to challenge and compare parsimony with is the PM. That is simply not the case for most people. As you say only 12 people can understand it. I don't care if that's the number, the general point I agree with.

"All the technology that the mathematics has produced has us addicted to the technology."

Your glasses involved technology and math. I don't think it is meaninful to say that you are addicted to your glasses. And if you think you are, I cannot imagine how you have a solution to the problems of the truly addictive technologies since you haven't found a way to correct your vision without technology - and, by the way, there are several methods that even non-enlightened people have managed to use to cure their nearsightedness and farsightedness and that's on a very mundane level.

I think that sentence is false. But then if you think it is false, why are you addicted to technology and how could you be the teacher to help us?

You repeat yourself a lot. I understand that you are trying to get people to have the ah ha moment you've at, but more or less as you say, it is self-evidenct to you.

If you want to improve this, you need to justify why you consider mathematics a message. I'm 8 and 1/2 minutes in. Perhaps you justify this later. But sure, your explanation is simpler than the PM, but a LOT of it is unjustified. There's a lot that is assumed and merely asserted. I'm not saying such a presentation can't be useful or true. However it's simplicity in comparison to something else may well be grounded in not trying, as Russell and Whitehead did, you justify every single step. And, again, their goal is not your goal. Their argument and your argument are not covering the same ground.

And now you return to challenging the PM as if it is taken as the authority on the issue you are focused on. It's not taken as that. You even mention Gödel, so you should know this. And then also it's goal was not what you say it is.

At 11:30 about, watch your own brain freeze. And note I am not saying you are wrong. In fact I believe I agree to a great extent with your conclusion about what it means that math is invented and discovered. What I am saying is then you get frustrated, right there, it's because, I think, you see the conclusion, not via rational steps, but through an intuitive insight. Fine. And you are trying to get this across to people, mainly through a lot of assertiona and reassertion. You cannot break that intuitive leap into tiny steps. It is not like what the Russell and Whitehead were trying to do. The OR is utterly irrevelant because it applies to theories with arguments in steps and explanations/how parsimonious they are. You are doing something other than the kind of communication R and W were doing. It's comparing apples and bicycles. The OR is not relevant.

And to get at this kind of idea most teachers avoid the pretense of a philosohpical discussion. They try to get people to realize things via experiences and practices. I know you do this to some degree also.

But I can't go on. It's like a trail of things that are slightly to totally off, your talk.
I also think it is misguided pedagogically. This is not how to get the idea across, in a pseudo logical, pseudo philsophical presentation.

Couple all this with how fucking rude you can be and how you treated the only person who supported you here. Your constant blaming, superiority, posturing and smugness and I think I have gone way overboard in watching your stuff.

Try meditating a few more years, but then that will never get at the emotional and interpersonal imprinting that taints every single presentation of yours.

You still can't see what's being reflected back to you by the people you look down on. Maybe you are addictd to that feeling superiority.

who knows

[roydop]

Samsara exists because human beings suffer. They suffer because they are in a state of delusion.

Now prove my theory wrong. Show me how a message that has been discovered and not yet correctly interpreted, does NOT express discovered and invented qualities in superposition.

If this condition of MESSAGE going through INTERPRETATION, (as my theory states) does indeed exhibit both discovered and invented qualities, then how is my theory incorrect? It's not incorrect because it is describing an impossible state, it's
incorrect in your eyes because you don't want to see it as correct.

1. It doesn't follow that Samsara exists because human beings suffer: that's just an unproven and frankly quite ridiculous claim of Eastern philosophies.
And I've all the reason to believe that it's flat out wrong to claim that they suffer because they are in a state of delusion. Some suffering is caused by that, some isn't. And some suffering is caused by NOT being in a state of delusion.

2. Again, even if we grant the above ridiculous 1.: you keep saying that a message about Samsara has been discovered. Where are you getting this from? Discovered by whom, why have we never heard about this?
And if it's a message, why isn't it a message about cat footprints or anything else?

3. Again, you can't think? Do I have to take a big hammer and hammer it into your head that maths could have discovered and invented qualities for a multitude of different reasons, not just the one you are proposing?

Ok, show me other phenomena that exhibit both discovered and invented qualities in superposition.

[roydop]

This is not a field of my expertise, but
1) Their intention with the PM was not to prove that 1+1=2
2) It's not the conclusion of the PM.
3) It is under contention if they succeeded in their intention, but the book led to advances in a number of sub-fields in philosopy. IOW you are speaking as if it is accepted that this was their intent and that they succeeded. Both are false.

So, right off the bat, a very short time into the video, there is confusion.

You then generalize that human consciousness has been convinced that 1+1=2 is valid by the PM. That is also false.
There are very few people who have even heard of that book, let alone read it. That is not why people find 1+1=2 and all its cousins extremely useful. Many of these people may not think it is a kind of convention. Others may not realize ontology is implicit, in a certain sense, in some of the ways the number system is used. On the other hand people with all sorts of metaphysical views find the numbers useful and most poeople don't care about this topic.

It's an incorrect view of how human consciousness find 1+1=2 valid or useful. You're rescuing people from something they've never heard of and aren't interested in.

After 4+ minutes you bring in Occam's razor and you present it incorrectly. It is not that the simplest and most comprehensive answer is the best one.
The OR is suggesting parsimony with entities. The simplest answer that explains X and no other explains it better. It does not have to be more comprehensive, but as comprehensive...and posits less entities. It's not a big mistake, but I now already have to keep track of this confusion to see if it is playing some role.

Also, your did not present, so far an explanation or an arguement in support of your one sentence. You simply asserted something.

Assertiosn are only convincing when power is involved.

So far, you haven't demonstrated that your explanation/argument is simpler, just your conclusion is. And simpler than the PM: For some reason you are acting as if the relevant authority to challenge and compare parsimony with is the PM. That is simply not the case for most people. As you say only 12 people can understand it. I don't care if that's the number, the general point I agree with.

"All the technology that the mathematics has produced has us addicted to the technology."

Your glasses involved technology and math. I don't think it is meaninful to say that you are addicted to your glasses. And if you think you are, I cannot imagine how you have a solution to the problems of the truly addictive technologies since you haven't found a way to correct your vision without technology - and, by the way, there are several methods that even non-enlightened people have managed to use to cure their nearsightedness and farsightedness and that's on a very mundane level.

I think that sentence is false. But then if you think it is false, why are you addicted to technology and how could you be the teacher to help us?

You repeat yourself a lot. I understand that you are trying to get people to have the ah ha moment you've at, but more or less as you say, it is self-evidenct to you.

If you want to improve this, you need to justify why you consider mathematics a message. I'm 8 and 1/2 minutes in. Perhaps you justify this later. But sure, your explanation is simpler than the PM, but a LOT of it is unjustified. There's a lot that is assumed and merely asserted. I'm not saying such a presentation can't be useful or true. However it's simplicity in comparison to something else may well be grounded in not trying, as Russell and Whitehead did, you justify every single step. And, again, their goal is not your goal. Their argument and your argument are not covering the same ground.

And now you return to challenging the PM as if it is taken as the authority on the issue you are focused on. It's not taken as that. You even mention Gödel, so you should know this. And then also it's goal was not what you say it is.

At 11:30 about, watch your own brain freeze. And note I am not saying you are wrong. In fact I believe I agree to a great extent with your conclusion about what it means that math is invented and discovered. What I am saying is then you get frustrated, right there, it's because, I think, you see the conclusion, not via rational steps, but through an intuitive insight. Fine. And you are trying to get this across to people, mainly through a lot of assertiona and reassertion. You cannot break that intuitive leap into tiny steps. It is not like what the Russell and Whitehead were trying to do. The OR is utterly irrevelant because it applies to theories with arguments in steps and explanations/how parsimonious they are. You are doing something other than the kind of communication R and W were doing. It's comparing apples and bicycles. The OR is not relevant.

And to get at this kind of idea most teachers avoid the pretense of a philosohpical discussion. They try to get people to realize things via experiences and practices. I know you do this to some degree also.

But I can't go on. It's like a trail of things that are slightly to totally off, your talk.
I also think it is misguided pedagogically. This is not how to get the idea across, in a pseudo logical, pseudo philsophical presentation.

Couple all this with how fucking rude you can be and how you treated the only person who supported you here. Your constant blaming, superiority, posturing and smugness and I think I have gone way overboard in watching your stuff.

Try meditating a few more years, but then that will never get at the emotional and interpersonal imprinting that taints every single presentation of yours.

You still can't see what's being reflected back to you by the people you look down on. Maybe you are addictd to that feeling superiority.

who knows

Or maybe I know the direct path to the end of all suffering and this is the way in which roy dopson presents it.

I'm offering the answer to why allof this is and how to transcend all suffering.

Apparently people don't want to let go of their delusions.

And this is also perfect

[Atla]

Ok, show me other phenomena that exhibit both discovered and invented qualities in superposition.

Why? We are talking about maths.
And how did you even establish that maths actually exhibits them instead of appearing to exhibit them?

[Atla]

Or maybe I know the direct path to the end of all suffering and this is the way in which roy dopson presents it.

I'm offering the answer to why allof this is and how to transcend all suffering.

Apparently people don't want to let go of their delusions.

And this is also perfect

Hm spiritual narcissism of the Eastern variant.. I think IWP particularly dislikes that one

[roydop]

Ok, show me other phenomena that exhibit both discovered and invented qualities in superposition.

Why? We are talking about maths.
And how did you even establish that maths actually exhibits them instead of appearing to exhibit them?

You can't disprove my theory as being incorrect and yet you are unable to accept it's correctness.

Why can't math be the ongoing incorrect interpretation of a message? You have no reasonable response to this question, other than your inability to accept it as such. Even though this condition resolves the greatest philosophical question about mathematics, somehow this means nothing. I see a lake outside my window and you tell me it's not there. Okie dokey then.

It's useless to try to get through to you, so goodbye.

[roydop]

Or maybe I know the direct path to the end of all suffering and this is the way in which roy dopson presents it.

I'm offering the answer to why allof this is and how to transcend all suffering.

Apparently people don't want to let go of their delusions.

And this is also perfect

Hm spiritual narcissism of the Eastern variant.. I think IWP particularly dislikes that one

Trying to help you out of suffering is narcissistic?

Remember this discussion when you are in the middle of hell.

[Atla]

Or maybe I know the direct path to the end of all suffering and this is the way in which roy dopson presents it.

I'm offering the answer to why allof this is and how to transcend all suffering.

Apparently people don't want to let go of their delusions.

And this is also perfect

Hm spiritual narcissism of the Eastern variant.. I think IWP particularly dislikes that one

Trying to help you out of suffering is narcissistic?

Remember this discussion when you are in the middle of hell.

Of course pretending to have the solution to all suffering when you don't, and lying to others, is narcissistic. Thought-free awareness my ass. Some people here are well acquainted with it and know what it can do and what it can't do.

[Atla]

Ok, show me other phenomena that exhibit both discovered and invented qualities in superposition.

Why? We are talking about maths.
And how did you even establish that maths actually exhibits them instead of appearing to exhibit them?

You can't disprove my theory as being incorrect and yet you are unable to accept it's correctness.

Why can't math be the ongoing incorrect interpretation of a message? You have no reasonable response to this question, other than your inability to accept it as such. Even though this condition resolves the greatest philosophical question about mathematics, somehow this means nothing. I see a lake outside my window and you tell me it's not there. Okie dokey then.

It's useless to try to get through to you, so goodbye.

You don't want to be honest in addressing the issue, because this serves your narcissism.

[Iwannaplato]

I've been perplexed by this phenomenon for a while now. We've had and still have quite a number of major revolutionaries, unrecognized geniuses and single greatest philosophers of all time, on this forum. But they somehow almost always end up completely ignoring one another after a few short exchanges. And they don't feel any need to challenge one another. It's like an instinct or understanding they all share, and I don't know what it is.

I think there is something vampiritic in these types. Even negative attention gives them blood AND confirmation that they are superior. They know they aren't getting anything from another vampire. That sounds harsh, even to my own ears, but I think there is an addiction to the dynamic. If you become a follower, that reinforces their self-image. If you reject them, they manage to reinforce their self-image with that. But another vampire, just backs away. There's no sustenance possible. There's nothing to give.

So, what can a non-vampire get out of such an exchange? Well, they can notice what they are expecting from it. Notice that it never seems to come. And then hopefully develop a better nose for when these types of dynamics arise in the real world. It's like a flight simulator.

[Impenitent]

the root of mathematics is radical...

-Imp

[Iwannaplato]

Ok, show me other phenomena that exhibit both discovered and invented qualities in superposition.

Why? We are talking about maths.
And how did you even establish that maths actually exhibits them instead of appearing to exhibit them?

Further it's as if he has no knowledge of constructivism or the various anti- and non-realisms.
Or he's never read anthropology.

Soon he'll tell us he's invented something he calls the wheel.

Let alone some forms of Hinduism and Buddhism.